Duh: Security Cameras Don't Work

This is a rant about two things: security cameras, and the complete lack of journalistic integrity at the San Francisco Chronicle.

First off, some background: Four years ago, our yuppie archetype mayor Gavin Newsom installed "security" cameras at public spaces in hopes of reducing violent crimes at those locations. There are some parts of San Francisco (such as the 16th/Mission BART station) where there have been repeated problems with assaults, robberies, and other violent crimes. Newsom's plan was met with skepticism by civil libertarians and law enforcement alike. But Newsom's allies in the "business community" and at Hearst Corporation's San Francisco Chronicle applauded the effort, most likely because the city would be spending money with certain businesses to implement the system.

Now a study on those cameras has concluded that they're not effective at deterring violent crime. They seem to have a marginal effect on property crimes in the area of the cameras, but I suspect they just shift property crime to other areas. But the cameras were touted as primarily a deterrent to violent crime. That's where the Chronicle comes in. They were the cameras' chief cheerleader. And today their headline on the story read "Mixed Results for Security Cameras." (NOTE: I won't link to the Chronicle's site or story here. The last thing I want to do is promote a propaganda rag masquerading as journalism) Mixed results? Read the fucking study, people. I suspect Hearst Corporation had that headline queued up months ago. They've never let inconvenient reality change their editorial-driven "coverage."

Chronicle Bans the Word "Progressive"

Bruce Brugmann, editor and founder of the SF Bay Guardian, has the scoop: Hearst Corporation has banned the use of the term "progressive" to describe local political figures, favoring instead derrogatory terms like "far left" and "ultra-liberal." This is typical of the Chron's heavily-biased coverage in the local market. The company that brought us "Remember the Maine!" has been waging an editorial and yellow journalism campaign against San Francisco's progressive Board of Supervisors for almost 8 years...ever since the return of district elections, and the subsequent victory of neighborhood interests over the corrupt political machine of Willie Brown.

See, The Chronicle doesn't write stories for the people of San Francisco. They write stories to please their advertisers, and secondarily to soothe the egos of the wealthy suburbanites they're targeting with those ads. They also write editorials and local "coverage" designed to please their patrons in San Francisco, namely the real estate speculators, high-end retailers, PG&E, and other local forces for evil. They do this by carrying water for the likes of Gavin Newsom. Their sustained, multi-year campaign to smear progressives has largely fallen on deaf ears in San Francisco, as voters keep putting progressive politicians in office, and passing progressive initiatives.

The Chron's plummeting circulation numbers show the results of their approach. As much as I'd love to see the paper implode, I think it's important to have a true daily paper here. But we need a fair daily paper...not one that's out to denigrate anyone it disagrees with.